Pictorial perception and culture

Jan B. Deregowski (1972)

We take it for granted that all cultures see as we see.
Deregowski questions this assumption. The conventions used in
western art are not recognised world-wide. Robert Laws, was a
Scottish missionary working in Malawi at the end of the 19th
century. He reported that natives could not easily interpret
black and white photographs. They recognise parts that make up
the whole, and with effort are able to combine the parts in order
to see the whole picture. Mrs Donald Fraser who taught health
care in Africa in the 1920's reported that the natives could not
appreciate that profiles were an accurate representation of
people. The natives would point out that as the picture showed
only one eye, it could not be a picture of a person. Another
report suggested that natives could understand 2D pictures easily
enough. In this case, tribespeople were frightened when a life-size
picture of an elephant was projected onto a sheet. These
unsystematic reports are hardly scientific evidence upon which to
draw conclusions. William Hudson, a researcher, used a much
better controlled technique. He presented pictures that had the
usual western depth cues.

Familiar size, which suggests that an object drawn
smaller than expected compared with other objects is
interpreted as being in the distance. In one of Hudson's
pictures a 'small' elephant is interpreted by westerners
as a 'large' elephant in the distance.

Overlap, which suggests that if one object obscures
another, then one object is closer than another. In the
Hudson picture, mentioned above, the human hunter and an
antelope partly obscure the background hills. Two hills
partly obscure a third hill, upon which the previously
mentioned elephant stands. It is logical for westerners
to conclude that the elephant is in the distance.

Perspective, this is the interpretation of converging
lines as meaning a constant width (perhaps a road)
receding into the distance. This cue was not present in
all the pictures used by Hudson.

Density gradient, a rougher texture suggests closer
pebbles or grass, etc., when compared with a smoother
texture. Hudson omitted this cue from all of his pictures
apart from one.

Hudson would ask questions like "What is closer to the
man?", or "What is the man doing?". In the above
described picture, the hunter appears to western eyes (brains!)
as though he is about to spear the antelope, but many native
Africans would say he was about to spear the elephant. This was
presumably because the elephant was viewed as being on the same
plane as the antelope, and thus in the line of fire. To make sure
this mistake was not owing to a more basic problem; a control
picture was also constructed. This depicted the objects as being
on the same plane (i.e. the same distance from the observer), and
all drawn in proportion to each other. This picture did not
depend on western depth cues, for interpretation. Natives
interpreted this picture correctly. Another control in this
experiment was for the experimenter to ask the subject to name
each object in the picture. This was just to make sure that any
problems were not owing to the poor recognition of the objects.
The sticks and modelling clay experiment.

In another test, Zambian primary school children and unskilled
workers were given sticks and modelling clay. The clay could hold
the sticks together. The subjects were asked to build a model as
depicted in a 2D drawing. Westerners would have had no difficulty in
interpreting the drawing as that of a cube, however, many Zambian
subjects produced a 2D model that matched the drawing, but was
not 3D! The subjects were also given Hudson's test (described
above). It was found that if the a subject gave incorrect answers
in the Hudson test (a two-dimensional perceiver) he was likely to
build a 2D model. Likewise, a subject who correctly answered
Hudson's test (a three-dimensional perceiver) would build a cube.
Two-dimensional perceivers preferred a drawing of two squares
joined on the same plane by a single line, rather than a western
drawing of a cube, when asked to chose the drawing that best
represented a model cube.

The ambiguous trident test.

A drawing of an impossible object (an ambiguous trident) was
given to Zambian children to copy. The amount of time the children could
see the drawing was controlled and recorded, by the lifting of a
flap that hid the drawing. The children were not allowed to draw
when the flap was open. After the flap was closed the children
had to wait another 10 seconds before continuing. The children
were also given the Hudson test. It was found that two-dimensional
perceivers spent less time looking at the drawing then three-dimensional
perceivers. Most westerners (three-dimensional perceivers) find
it difficult to copy the ambiguous trident, owing to our
knowledge of real objects interfering with what is really
depicted. The Zambian two-dimensional perceivers presumably do
not suffer from this interference effect and are therefore able
to copy the drawing far more easily.

Gregory's test.

Richard L. Gregory of Bristol University, has designed an
apparatus that can allow an objective read-out of how far away an
object depicted in a picture appears to be. This ingenious device
has a Polaroid filter that allows the picture to be seen by only
one eye, whereas an adjustable spot of light can be seen three-dimensionally
with both eyes. Hudson's pictures were displayed, using this
apparatus, to African unskilled workers. The subjects were asked
to adjust the light so that it appeared at the same distance as
objects depicted in Hudson's pictures. Three-dimensional
perceivers adjust the light in accordance with the perceived
depth of objects in the pictures. This gives a variety of
readings for one picture. Two-dimensional viewers (many of the
Africans) gave similar readings for all the objects depicted in a
picture, suggesting that they perceived the objects as if they
were all the same depth. The readings for the control pictures (objects
on one plane) were similar for both three-dimensional perceivers
and two-dimensional perceivers.

Split Drawings

Hudson also found that African children and adults prefer
pictures of elephants, viewed from above, that show most of the
elephant's features (e.g. all the legs). Even though, in an overhead view of an
elephant, the legs would not be visible, the Africans preferred a
picture of, what appears to western eyes as, an elephant doing
the splits, showing all four legs! It was mentioned above that
Zambian workers prefer the split drawing representation of the
model cube. Split drawings appear in cultures world-wide.
American Indians of the north-western coast, people of the Sahara
desert, Siberia and New Zealand, all have used the split drawing
style in their art. Explanations

Franz Boas suggests the split drawing style emerged as
people developed their skills in making three-dimensional
objects. First, the drawings could be regarded as
technical drawings of the designs to be placed on the
several facets of a box, for example. This style then
became aesthetically pleasing, and thus was adopted as a
general style of art.

Claude Lvi-Strauss suggests that the drawings
represent a society's exploration of split personalities.
This is often manifested by masks in rituals.

Deregowski, doubts these theories. He feels that it is
difficult for one culture to understand the art of another. It
seems that different cultures adopt different conventions for
representing the outside world through their art. The results of
the above perceptual tests support this view.

Your questions

2. Jan B.Deregowski: Pictorial Perception

I was wondering about 3 ethical issues-with this
being more a piece of research material I found it hard to identify them, also
I found the background to this study incredibly confusing-please could you give
me a straight forward background theory as to WHY it was performed-carefully
not confusing it with the Aim (as this is what I did!)

Ethics:

Intrusion into a remote society

Could change their way of life.

Informed consent difficult to obtain.

White experimenters could be intimidating
and the equipment might confuse or frighten the natives.

Native society could be made to feel
inferior in ability and aesthetic taste.

Theory:

Hudson found that natives interpreted 2D
representations of 3D images as if the depicted objects were all on one plane.
This was tested using a series of laboratory experiments. Evidence was
found to support the view that natives perceived 2D pictures of 3D scenes as
if the depicted objects were indeed on one plane. This would suggest
that the ability to interpret depth cues is learnt rather than innate.